It's also cheating to take less money than the market will bear so that your team can go out and get a better supporting cast. That's why Peyton Manning is the GOAT - he took all the loot he could and then made do with a mediocre team. Go Peyton!
So, uh, Brady... IS THE GREATEST QB OF ALL TIME NOT EVEN CLOSE SCREW YOU MONTANA
- Thread starter FL4WL3SS
- Start date
- Status
This shit is just as embarrassing as ESPN using "air yards" in their QBR formula. As if there's only one way to play quarterback.
At some point, people are going to have to realize that the lack of true independent events and the capability to differentiate the greatness or one player involved in a pass from the other means we will never have something along the lines of WAR for the NFL.rodderick said:
Exactly. In all of the rush to create advanced stats that correlate to wins, people like Kascmar dismiss any outliers like Brady that win without fitting nicely into their formulas as "lucky". Maybe their analyses aren't truly capturing what makes Brady great. Here's an example of an intelligent person who, when faced with a situation like the Super Bowl where the outcome doesn't match the statistical model, suggests that his advanced stats may be flawed: http://www.footballperspective.com/super-bowl-xlix-and-thoughts-on-anya/Chuck Z said:
Yeah he's right now comparing Manning's performance in the 9 one-and-done losses to Brady's 9 AFCCGs and arguing that Manning's stats show that he played better.BigJimEd said:
https://twitter.com/fo_scottkacsmar/status/563595702690127873
https://twitter.com/fo_scottkacsmar/status/563595702690127873
link to tweet
https://twitter.com/fo_scottkacsmar/status/563595702690127873singaporesoxfan said:
link to tweet
Well, in last year's Super Bowl, Manning completed 69.4% of his passes for 280 yards against one of the great secondaries of all time. If you stopped there, you'd say, well, they sure didn't lose because of him.
But if you watched the game, you know that he was pretty bad and couldn't move Denver *at all*.
Guys like Kacsmar have it backwards; they have a narrative in mind and let it guide the statistics. It's a shame he's representative of FO given how rational Schaatz has come off whenever I've listened to him talk football.
Mooch said:
Interesting article, but am I missing something here?
In talking about Wilson he says:
So, he says gaining a first down on 47.6% of attempts and 41.6% of dropbacks is not good.
For Brady though he says:
Here he seems to be saying Brady converting 41.1% of dropbacks in first downs is good.
It's not so clearly written, but I think he's trying to highlight the differential between passes completed for first downs and passes attempted for first downs:DrewDawg said:
That 83.3% vs 56.8% comparison makes it look like a vertical attack is more effective. But the 41.6% vs. 41.1% suggests there isn't much benefit to a vertical approach
Mooch said:
In fairness, a lot of these techniques are developed in economics departments where they often do the same thing--gotta kick out anything you can't effectively quantify in the overarching interest of quantifying things.
Which is a fucking problem.
538 article just posted: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/tom-bradys-statistical-place-in-the-pantheon-of-nfl-qbs/
They have Montana 1, Brady 2 but Brady can still pass with a few more high level seasons.
They have Montana 1, Brady 2 but Brady can still pass with a few more high level seasons.
I was just about to post 538 article.
The Kurt Warner leap ahead of Brady makes me question the math.
in any case its probably Montana/Brady or Brady/Montana
The Kurt Warner leap ahead of Brady makes me question the math.
in any case its probably Montana/Brady or Brady/Montana
I'm all for accounting for performance in higher leverage games but weighting performance in one Super Bowl game as equivalent to performance in 205 regular season games is totally crazy. Very few QBs even play in that many regular season games in their career!ifmanis5 said:
Edit: Incidentally, this is how one reaches the conclusion that Jake Delhomme created more value during his career than Dan Marino.
Edit2: Mark Sanchez as the 30th best QB of all time is also pretty awesome given that he's not even the 30th best QB in the NFL right now.
Wow. That 538 article is worse than the FO junk from yesterday. The stat heads have found new ways to embarrass themselves this week. Here are my favorites:
2. Warner
6. Aikman
12. Stabler
16. Flacco
17. Delhomme
20. Marino
22. Simms
23. E. Manning
25. Kaepernick
I could keep going but stopped at 25. This isn't serious stuff, right? Kurt Warner is 18 spots better than Marino? Trent Green is the 21st best regular season QB of all time? HAHHAHHAHHA. I just got trolled for reading that garbage.
2. Warner
6. Aikman
12. Stabler
16. Flacco
17. Delhomme
20. Marino
22. Simms
23. E. Manning
25. Kaepernick
I could keep going but stopped at 25. This isn't serious stuff, right? Kurt Warner is 18 spots better than Marino? Trent Green is the 21st best regular season QB of all time? HAHHAHHAHHA. I just got trolled for reading that garbage.
Mark Sanchez is just a few ticks above the immortal Erik Kramer, who checks in at #36. Probably mostly due to this impressive playoff performance which, naturally, counts as if it were 51 regular season games.
The pitchforks are out for Mr. Brady once again. Giving his MVP truck to Butler turns out to be a selfish gesture.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12290611/malcolm-butler-new-england-patriots-pay-taxes-tom-brady-gifted-car?ex_cid=espnapi_public
And to think The Onion thought haters were going to take an entire offseason to strategize and figure out ways to undermine Mr. Brady as a player and degrade him as a person.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/resilient-tom-brady-critics-already-looking-ahead,37959/
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12290611/malcolm-butler-new-england-patriots-pay-taxes-tom-brady-gifted-car?ex_cid=espnapi_public
And to think The Onion thought haters were going to take an entire offseason to strategize and figure out ways to undermine Mr. Brady as a player and degrade him as a person.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/resilient-tom-brady-critics-already-looking-ahead,37959/
I got into a twitter argument with him before the Colts game. He was insinuating that the Patriots couldn't win rematch games after Spygate because they don't have the advantage of having tape on their opponents. It was complete trolling on his part. Very disappointing for a FO guy. In fairness when he sticks to straight analysis, he's pretty good. But he definitely likes to troll Patriots fans, for whatever reason.BigJimEd said:
So, a question:
When the Pats start the year going 2-2 or something, how quickly do the vultures start circling about how Brady is 'just that much older' or 'he must have rested on his laurels this off season' or 'he just got lucky last year'?
When the Pats start the year going 2-2 or something, how quickly do the vultures start circling about how Brady is 'just that much older' or 'he must have rested on his laurels this off season' or 'he just got lucky last year'?
https://twitter.com/fo_scottkacsmar/status/563595702690127873singaporesoxfan said:
link to tweet
What a moronic stat. Let's look at the points actually scored in those games, so we don't penalize them for not being greedy and calling a running TD:
Manning: 16, 17, 0, 18, 24, 17, 16, 35, 13: 156
Brady: 24, 24, 41, 34, 21, 23, 13, 16, 45: 241
So basically Brady's Offense in the AFC Championship scored 241 points and Manning's Offenses in the first or second round scored 156. I don't have time at the moment to go find defensive points and subtract them.
Also instead of just doing totals, if he actually looked at a game log 6 of those 10 INT for Brady came in 2 games (3 in each) so in 7 other AFC Championships he's had 4 total picks, had a horrid game against Baltimore and a bad game against SD (which they won)
DIAF
NortheasternPJ said:
So what you're saying is, looking at the QB passing numbers, is that Brady pulled out just enough to win?
Bridget agrees wholeheartedly.
Just the fact that he is comparing Peyton's one and done games with pats AFC title games says it all.
Just the fact that he is comparing Peyton's one and done games with pats AFC title games says it all.
I'm happy that the argument is Brady/Montana, and that Manning, as great as he was and may still be, is basically out of the conversation.
But there are two anti-Brady arguments that annoy me. One is the Cassell 11-5 record. I mean, that team was OK, missed the playoffs, and 11-5 is nice but it was a five game drop-off from the year before. In other words, it wasn't nearly the team it would have been with Brady. And it's not like the 49ers tanked without Montana. Bono went 5-1. Young went 14-2 his first full year. There is way more evidence that the 49ers didn't need Montana than there is that the Patriots didn't need Brady.
The other is about how great Montana was in the Super Bowl, 4-0, as if that's all that matters in the playoffs. He deserves credit for those four games, sure, but he had a lot of crappy performances in the playoffs. What about 3 points against the Giants in the '85 AND'86 playoffs, and then getting BENCHED in the '87 playoffs? And not finishing a couple of other playoff games? And his goal-line interception against the Dolphins to end his career? I just can't see how all of that is better than actually scoring a bunch of points and actually winning playoff games and making it to the Super Bowl.
But there are two anti-Brady arguments that annoy me. One is the Cassell 11-5 record. I mean, that team was OK, missed the playoffs, and 11-5 is nice but it was a five game drop-off from the year before. In other words, it wasn't nearly the team it would have been with Brady. And it's not like the 49ers tanked without Montana. Bono went 5-1. Young went 14-2 his first full year. There is way more evidence that the 49ers didn't need Montana than there is that the Patriots didn't need Brady.
The other is about how great Montana was in the Super Bowl, 4-0, as if that's all that matters in the playoffs. He deserves credit for those four games, sure, but he had a lot of crappy performances in the playoffs. What about 3 points against the Giants in the '85 AND'86 playoffs, and then getting BENCHED in the '87 playoffs? And not finishing a couple of other playoff games? And his goal-line interception against the Dolphins to end his career? I just can't see how all of that is better than actually scoring a bunch of points and actually winning playoff games and making it to the Super Bowl.
The logic behind that decision is at least understandable, if it does throw up some funky results. If they replaced Adjusted Net Yards with WPA they would be showing career championship probability added, a logical metric for this debate given that the goal of every NFL team in any given year is to win the superbowl. Given that career and playoff WPA is very difficult to find, ANYs seem like a reasonable substitute.Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
However, such an approach obviously ignores the impact of luck, teammates, opponents, etc on getting to and winning playoff games, while placing a gigantic amount of weight on that small subset of games which probably don't mean significantly more than random regular season games when it comes to evaluating how good a given player really was. A more balanced weighting of playoff and regular season games would probably be more appropriate, although determining exactly what those weights should be is an inherently arbitrary exercise and would be very difficult to argue for any given set of values over any other. Frankly, the same is true of whatever vague and inexplicit subconscious weighings our brains come up with.
In short, while it is possible that the article should have presented that list a little more carefully (it isn't a "best QBs" list, but a "most value added" list), the metric is entirely valid for presenting which quarterback's performances most helped their teams chances of winning the Superbowl.
Please. If they lose Week 1 I'll bet $1,000,000 someone runs a "Super Bowl Hangover?" headline or segment on ESPN.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Just in case some idiot gives you crap about Brady being a mere 4-2 in super bowls:
Among postseasons contested:
Joe Montana: 4-7 (let's exclude 1980 [not yet a starter] and 1982 [strike year] as well as 91-92 when he wasn't the starter; but include 1986 [returned from injury])
Tom Brady: 4-8 (excluding 2008 [injury], though you could argue for including 2002 as an effective loss)
Playoff Record:
Joe Montana: 16-7 (69.6%)
Tom Brady: 21-8 (72.4%)
If you're only going to give credit for super bowls won, then you surely have to give blame for exiting the postseason at any point.
Among postseasons contested:
Joe Montana: 4-7 (let's exclude 1980 [not yet a starter] and 1982 [strike year] as well as 91-92 when he wasn't the starter; but include 1986 [returned from injury])
Tom Brady: 4-8 (excluding 2008 [injury], though you could argue for including 2002 as an effective loss)
Playoff Record:
Joe Montana: 16-7 (69.6%)
Tom Brady: 21-8 (72.4%)
If you're only going to give credit for super bowls won, then you surely have to give blame for exiting the postseason at any point.
I love that if you take away every win from TB's Super Bowl winning seasons, he still has a better playoff record than Manning
Thinking about the Cassell thing some more it occurred to me that I've never heard anyone make the argument that since the Bulls were 57-25 in 1993 with Michael Jordan and 55-25 in 1994 with Pete Myers as their starting shooting guard it is therefoe proven that Jordan was just a product of Phil Jackson's system and clearly NOT amongst the greatest players ever.snowmanny said:
MentalDisabldLst said:
Fun facts. Here are more….
#Seasons played:
- Brady: 15 (13 as a starter, 1 as a backup, 1 injured in the first quarter of game 1)
- Montana: 15 (13 as a starter, 1 as a backup, 1 injured)
So of those 13 real seasons...
#Seasons in Playoffs:
- Brady: 12
- Montana: 11
Playoff Record:
- Brady: 21-8 (.724)
- Montana: 16-7 (.696)
One-and-Dones:
- Brady: 2
- Montana: 4
Adjusted Playoff Record (counting a bye as a W):
- Brady: 30-8 (.789)
- Montana: 24-7 (.774)
Conference Championships:
- Brady: 6
- Montana: 4
Super Bowl Championships:
- Brady: 4
- Montana: 4
League MVPs:
- Brady: 2 (including the only unanimous MVP)
- Montana: 2
Super Bowl MVPs:
- Brady: 3
- Montana: 3
Profootball-reference.com Value (AV), Career:
- Brady: 153 (#6 all time)
- Montana: 123 (#25 all time)
It's hard to compare individual passing stats because they played in such different eras. Brady's stats dwarf Montana's but it's obviously a league whose rules heavily favor passing now, so it's not fair to Montana to put his numbers up against Brady's.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
ivanvamp said:
Hold on, Montana was a rookie backup in 1979, started 7 games in 1980 (trailed DeBerg in GS, Attempts, yards...), was the starter in the ten years 1981-1990 (injured 1st half of 1986), was injured in 1991 and injured/a backup in 1992 (entered for the 2nd half of the last game of the season after they had clinched HFA, but Young started in the playoffs), and then the starter for KC for 93-94.
By my count, if we give him 1986, that's 12 seasons as a starter, 3 as a backup (1979, 1980, 1992), and 1 injured (1991), for 16 total.
Interesting "Tom Brady is good, you guys" stat: Brady is the best QB of all time at winning games when his team allows 21 or more points. It's not even close, really (Manning is #2 in wins above replacement in this stat and Brady has just 5 fewer raw wins and 27 fewer losses):
http://www.footballperspective.com/quarterback-records-when-their-team-allows-21-points/
http://www.footballperspective.com/quarterback-records-when-their-team-allows-21-points/
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Super Nomario said:
Cute. And ranked by winning percentage (min: 15 games fitting these conditions), it's 1: Tom Brady (60-46), 2: Otto Graham (11-9-1), 3: Daryle Lamonica (18-15-2), 4: Joe Montana (32-32). Those are the only QBs with an >=.500 WPCT when their team allows 21+ points. 5th is Aaron Rodgers (25-28); Peyton is 8th.
So that this isn't an entirely useless Tom Brady post, here's a picture of him doing some offseason conditioning:
On mobile but looks like Chris Simms is back doubling down on Brady not being top 5 in the NFL.
I imagine it would be fun to go up to Chris Simms and pretend like he's Major Applewhite. Something tells me he would go home and cry about that afterward.
If Chris Simms states that Brady is a top 5 QB, no one would talk about Chris Simms. If Chris Simms says that Brady isn't a top 5 QB, people talk about Chris Simms. Follow the money.
- Status